| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joshua Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Date: | 2011-05-03 18:06:51 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=QLN_KGotrwkY8nXe8UOL_mQ8M+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On 3 May 2011 19:02, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Can Unlogged tables be located on a table space mount on a ram fs
> without hosing the instance if the server gets bounced?
No more than anything else in a RAM filesystem. There are of course
battery-backed RAM disk devices people can use, but those are a
special case.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-05-03 18:07:01 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Rob Wultsch | 2011-05-03 18:02:34 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-05-03 18:07:01 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |
| Previous Message | Rob Wultsch | 2011-05-03 18:02:34 | Re: Unlogged vs. In-Memory |